reset_schematic

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description richly supplements the annotations. It explains the snapshot mechanism, that the snapshot is dropped after reset, that add_component on a new schematic snapshots the empty file, that repeated calls with no edits return reverted=false, and that snapshots do not persist across server restarts. This goes well beyond destructiveHint and idempotentHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although the description is long, every sentence earns its place: purpose, snapshot mechanics, edge cases, return behavior, and persistence limitations are all relevant. It is front-loaded with the core recovery purpose before diving into details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive recovery tool, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the snapshot lifecycle, the empty-file edge case, the reverted=false return value, and the non-persistence caveat. The presence of an output schema means return-value details beyond reverted=false are not required in the description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both 'path' and 'format'. The description adds context about how the server snapshots each .asc file, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reverts an .asc schematic to its pre-session state, using a specific verb ('Revert'), a specific resource ('.asc schematic'), and a clear scope ('BEFORE the first edit this session'). It also positions itself as a 'recovery escape hatch,' distinguishing it from siblings like apply_schematic_ops or create_schematic.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: 'when a sequence of edits went wrong.' It also gives a when-not scenario by noting it returns reverted=false when there are no in-session edits, and warns it is 'not a substitute for version control,' which clarifies limitations and alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.